Surprisingly there is quite a bit outside of the new testament of course. But Mel Gibson's re-creation was offensive because if you see the film it almost exclusively blames Jews for Jesus execution to the point of being anti-Semetic. When add in his behavior on several occassions and anti-Semetic drunken statements I think at least IMO the Passion of Christ was more so a Passion of Mel's against Jews.

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Click to expand...

Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

Click to expand...

Josephus, a first century Jewish historian

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.

Click to expand...

Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .

I considered 2012 an insult to my intelligence.
I actually felt angry when it was over, not only was the movie so stupid, it left me feeling like the film makers thought I was stupid for going along with it for 2 hours.

If you want to see a movie about Jesus's last days that's based on the bible, don't watch Passion of the Christ, watch The Gospel Of St Matthew.

The South Park episode claimed (In their 'We're telling you something totally true now' voice) Passion was based on a Spanish play written during the Inquisition, and the Bible didn't go into such detail about the crucifixion. Don't know how credible that can be taken to be, but the film certainly fills in the informational gaps in the Bible with Mel's big ol' imagination.

The films that offend me the most are films that speak to the audience in the language of being open minded and progressive but at their heart are super-conservative. Films like Friends With Kids where characters try to have a non-traditional family and just realize they need to behave more traditionally at the end, not because they're forced to, but because human nature compels them to.

Also there's tons of cases in films where women have to prove they're not shallow by dating a man who isn't physically attractive, but nearly zero cases where men have to prove the same thing. Women in a lot of films basically exist as a reward for the most virtuous male.

Pointless sequels and reboots irk me a lot, particularly when they're not really needed or desirable- of course I suppose that that's sort of subjective though I bet that we could agree on a few reboots or sequels that maybe shouldn't have ever been greenlit. Of course, some franchises like Star Wars and Star Trek had good sequels that kept things going but things like Disney going on a massive direct-to-DVD sequels to classic movies binge in the late 90's early 00's tarnished a lot of the classics and I'd actually rather pretend that most of them never existed. It seems like there is a disturbing lack of originality in Hollywood sometimes.

Movies which "offend" me are movies which insult my intelligence, or otherwise seem to show contempt for their audience. Horror movies tend to get a pass from me more often than the other genres, but...

I'd at least have more faith in remakes if they took some chances with it. Most just place it safe and try to appeal to a very wide audience.

With RoboCop, the original had themes of identity, a corporation that cares more about the bottom line than human life (even the lives of their employees), privatization of public services, massive corruption, man vs machine (both internal and external), life, death and messianic imagery while done through a dark satire of 1980s America with extreme violence about a cyborg regaining his humanity. All of that is still relevant today because we're starting to actually live in that world. We literally have flying robots that kill people, companies buying up public services (including the city of Detroit) and general notion that corporations really run the country due to lobbying the government. We just don't have a cyborg police officer we can root for as he recovers his identity from the company that stole it from him.

It can be done, but its easier to make an action movie where they have to explain to the audience that he's fighting his programming because they assume the audience is too dumb to realize it.

There were some great remakes in the 80s like The Thing and The Fly. Both took the original concept and went in a different direction. The Thing is more about paranoia than a monster and The Fly is more about watching someone you love being consumed by an illness than a giant fly. I actually saw a comment from Fox about remaking The Fly again because they wanted to see The Fly actually fly around.

Also, the film makers DID want to use the battlesuits, but during pre-production they just couldn't find a way to avoid making them too cartoony, and there was a fear that all the characters would look the same.

Click to expand...

Wow ... for being so forward in labeling SST a "satire", they sure missed the irony of that attitude.

I advise going in with alcohol, some good friends and the desire to mock it. Because I really can't tell if the movie is taking itself too seriously or it a parody of movies that do that.

Click to expand...

The really disturbing thing about The Human Centipede is knowing that it probably exists because that's a fetish for someone.

Click to expand...

What's really disturbing is that everything is. I found a subreddit for people who get off on gaining so much weight that they can no longer walk. They post photos of themselves and post tips on gaining more weight than land mammals should be capable of gaining and surviving longer than a few hours.

What's really disturbing is that everything is. I found a subreddit for people who get off on gaining so much weight that they can no longer walk. They post photos of themselves and post tips on gaining more weight than land mammals should be capable of gaining and surviving longer than a few hours.

Yeesh, that's an uninspiring bunch. I've only seen 2 of them but I don't really have any burning interest in seeing the other 3. Of the 2 I have seen:
I hated Munich. I didn't think it was physically possible for Spielberg to make a movie that dull.Good Night and Good Luck wasn't terrible but it was a very dull hagiography and only exists because Edward R. Murrow isn't still around for George Clooney to give him a blow job in person.

The only movie I can ever recall being offended by was Guy Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes", with Robert Downey, Jr. Nothing against RDJ; I loved him in "Chaplin", and I love him as Tony Stark. But Sherlock Holmes has been my favorite fictional character since I was thirteen, and that movie just made me want to throw things. I never had high hopes for it, but I tried to keep an open mind, because I didn't want to be one of those hard-core traditionalists. But I guess that's what I am. Apparently the director didn't think that audiences would be interested in a movie built around Holmes's brilliant feats of deductive reasoning, so he went with fistfights and explosions. I know, Holmes is an excellent boxer and swordsman, but he's no action hero. His greatest strength is his mind, but there was barely any of that in Ritchie's film. Just a lot of cheap thrills and pandering to the lowest common denominator. I refuse to even watch the sequel. Even though I always said Stephen Fry would make a great Mycroft.

Sorry. That was a bit of a rant. Holmes is just very near and dear to my heart. On the other hand, I am a big fan of BBC's "Sherlock". So far it's done a great job bringing Holmes into the modern age, while preserving the spirit of the original stories.

Click to expand...

I agree that the Guy Ritchie movies don't feature enough deductions for my taste. But then, that's kind of a tough thing to get on screen. Sherlock and a lot of the other adaptations kinda gloss over that stuff too. But I thought the Guy Ritchie movies got the characters absolutely right!